Here it comes (Was Re: New Plan)

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> Don't Moderate Angry... should be a slogan. I've stated for years if
> anyone has a problem with me, approach me and talk about it. A few

> pathetic groups ever assembled. I've had self righteous GMs shut down
> entire plot lines of mine based on player rumor (Dan, Lyle?). I've had 

Isn't Dan the Campaign Moderator? i.e. he CAN

Did you approach him and talk about it? as suggested above?

> accusations of cheating, GM impartiality, etc... Not once has anyone b

You have/had a HIRUDO ... you know, the character in the book prefaced by
(paraphrased) PLAYERS CAN'T PLAY THESE!  Regardless of legitimacy behind
your playing it, to all appearances you appear to be
bending/torquing/breaking the rules because they expressly say NO.

Add to it the "local rules" that are added to the Centralia setting or the
"Hirudo write ups," or "special defensive skill" that fairly regularly pop
up in non Centralia games, and you wonder WHY people may have issue.

If you want to have localized rules for your setting
If you have the permission of the campaign moderator (regardless of WHO it
is)
If you keep the local rules LOCAL ie NOT SPILLING INTO OTHER GM's GAMES

I got no problem with that.  It's not my cup of tea, but it's not a
problem.


HERE'S the problem:

Those most visible Torquing the existing rules are among the most vocal of
the advocates on this group calling for rule consistancy through finalized
modification.

This concerns me.

The cynic in me wants to believe this is so the torqued rulings may stand
as cannon.

The rest of the person hopes this is not true.

> A few of us try to rise above this mold and confront stuff headon and
> are branded troublemakers and negative voices. That is the voice of
> fear. No one likes being wrong. 

Hey, more compliments ... Thanks!  Happy to be part of your Noble Elite!

> Dan feels attacked by every statement. Lyle maybe is attacked by
> every statement. 

Gee, I wonder why they feel that way ...

> We create hierarchies of GMs and set one of us higher than others. This
> is insanity.

I'll ignore the jab here and field the hierarchy issue.

Dan is campaign manager because the club voted him into that postion.
Allah did not rule it so, he did not part the Red Sea, He did not inherit
the throne.

THE CLUB voted Dan into a postion that THE CLUB understood involved being
in AUTHORITY over the GMs

If we do not want him in that postion, there are provisions within the
club's consititution to take care of that.  These provisions I am sure do
not include a group of GMs suddenly saying they want to change the way the
CLUB works without having the members vote on it.

Ironic that there are problems understanding that, as those proposing
change are doing it in the name of democracy. 


> Someone explains there belief
> behind a rule and are accused of being a munchkin instead of a role
> player. Is this the way to remove hard feelings and acheive progress?

There exist differences between discussing rulings outside the game, and
flat out verbal fights between PLAYERS and the GM.  IMHO nothing discussed
in this group, a forum for such discussion, is munchkinism.  However, the
ends to the discussions may be. Munchkinism does not involve what you
COULD DO with the rules, rather what you ACTUALLY DO with the rules.


> I think this thread should be dropped. No good will come of it.

Then why are you continuing it with this post?

> If people don't want to discuss rules, that's cool. Personally I'd
> rather discuss stuff in private anyway. Then maybe just bring up
> suggestions and not allow for debate. Bring them up in meetings
> where people can't hide smugly behind electrons. 

I don't mind the list as a forum for discussion ... for time constraints,
I rather like it. I think your assumption of annonymity by "hiding smugly
behind electrons" is invalid, I know who you guys are ... the group's just
too small.  It's not like I'm going to come in on Saturday and say "I
never posted that"

If I have a serious problem ... I doubt anyone on the list thinks I would
not let whomever the problem was with not know about it.
 
> I would suggest that we cannot bring up a topic and vote on it
> in the same meeting. No railroading, no fasttrack. The topics for
> voting should be sent out a few days ahead of the meetings and
> anything to be voted on should be distributed on paper the
> meeting before hand. A GM is someone who GMs at least once per
> semester. Lets track that. This encourages people to GM and
> cuts off some people who just want to argue. The GM schedule for
> the next two weeks should be determined at these meetings which
> I suggest we hold every two weeks starting with this coming
> saturday. Anyone who wants to can bring anything in (in writing
> with enough copies for all present) and request it be voted on
> the following meeting.
>
> I think these are simple guidelines and will let us operate in
> a more structured environment. The semester just started lets
> start taking attendance. Until we nomintate and vote someone
> else in, I'll keep track of who has moderated. Since this is
> the first semester of tracking we'll remember back to last 
> week and anyone else who wants to stay for the meeting will
> put themselves on this semester's GM schedule. I'll post the
> schedule at http://www.aquest.com/~steve/sched.html
> 
> The quickest way to get things neatened up is to put in some guidelines 
> for us, as GMs, to follow. Is this agreeable? If so we just schedule
> GM meetings so that we have:
> 
> 1) Discussion on voting topics
> 2) Voting
> 3) Handing out proposals for next meeting discussion/voting
> 4) Discussion of ongoing plotlines.
> 
> Number four is a biggie. I think it'll help to ease tension if
> everyone knows where things are and were they're going.
> 
> See everyone Saturday at 6PM?
> 
> 						-Steve
> 

Shouldn't the club officers be involved (read as RUNNING) a big portion of
this, especially the administration stuff?

John